The Editorial Boards of both the New York Times and Los Angeles Times went into full meltdown mode on Wednesday following the landslide victory of incumbent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel’s elections.
The New York Times Editorial Board fumes, “Prime Minister Netanyahu’s outright rejection of a Palestinian state and his racist rant against Israeli Arab voters on Tuesday showed that he has forfeited any claim to representing all Israelis.”
Breitbart News’ Joel Pollak pointed out the hypocrisy in such a criticism, especially one that comes from the left-wing media — which had been supporting Netanyahu’s opponents — and attempted to convince Arab voters that Netanyahu was not the right candidate for them as a demographic. “If it is racist to point out that Arab voters are being bused to the polls, then it is racist to bus them to the polls in the first place, and to report (with fervent hope, as in most media articles) that those Arab voters dislodge Netanyahu from power,” writes Pollak.
The Editorial Board continues: “Mr. Netanyahu showed that he was desperate, and craven, enough to pull out all the stops. On Monday, he promised that if his Likud faction remained in power, he would never allow the creation of a Palestinian state, thus repudiating a position he had taken in 2009,” the Editorial Board adds.
The elite media, which presents the two-state solution as the magical formula for peace in the entirety of the Middle East, is infuriated that Netanyahu would dare recognize a reality accepted by honest observers of the Arab-Israeli conflict: that the two-state solution and the “land for peace” format have been complete failures in bringing sustained peace for both Israelis and the Palestinian people.
On the eve of elections, Netanyahu made clear that he recognizes the fact that Israel faces hostile entities in both the Palestinian Authority and Gaza-ruling terror group Hamas, and that there is no governing Palestinian entity that is legitimately interested in peace with Israel.
Hamas has proven that its only purpose is to see the destruction of the Jewish state. The Palestinian Authority (PA), on the other hand, keeps its hands clean in the eyes of the international community (and the mainstream media) because it only encourages terrorism, and does not overtly carry out the acts themselves.
It has been proven that the PA pays lump sums of cash to the families of suicide bombers who kill Jews, but this apparently does not rule them out as a peacemaking, “moderate” organization.
The New York Times then attacks Netanyahu for “failing to address the issues that Israelis said they were most worried about, namely the high cost of housing and everyday living in Israel.” The Times adds, “Although the economy has grown, the country has experienced widening income disparities and is now one of the most unequal societies in the advanced world.” The socialist-minded Editorial Board seemingly implies it is better that all Israelis be poor and “equal” than for a Netanyahu-approved, market-oriented system to prevail.
The equally-upset Los Angeles Times Editorial Board writes, “Netanyahu fought to hold on to power in the worst way. In a desperate attempt to win the support of hard-line voters, he repudiated his tepid-from-the-start support for a two-state solution in which Israel would coexist peacefully with an independent Palestinian state.”
“We don’t mind saying that we were hoping for the end of the counterproductive Netanyahu era in Israeli politics,” the Editorial Board admits.
The Los Angeles paper ends by lecturing its readers on how the decades-old two-state solution idea is best for “regional peace” and for “Israel’s self-interest.” By doing so, the newspaper implies that Israelis apparently do not know what is in their own best interests, because they elected another Netanyahu-led government.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.